Departmental Websites

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many websites there are within his responsibilities; and what the total cost of maintaining such websites was in the last year for which figures are available.

Gareth Thomas: The information requested is as follows:
	 Overall costs maintaining DFID websites are as follows:
	Main DFID website and two country office sites—£127,097 for 2005.
	Developments magazine—£11,500 for 2005.
	Research for Development portal—£293,464 set up costsfor 2005.
	 Specialist audience sites include:
	AIDSPortal—£355,000 since 2004.
	Sending Money Home—£9,650 to set up. There are no maintenance costs.
	Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative—£1,500 to set up. There are no maintenance costs.
	Financial Deepening Challenge Fund's website—average costs are £2,000 per year.
	Illegal-Fishing.info—£40,000 to maintain in 2005.
	Asia 2015 Conference website—£14,000 to set up and maintain in 2005.
	PASS Livelihoods—£36,824 from October 2005-September 2006
	The Business Linkages Challenge Fund—£2,565 for January-December 2005.
	EC-PREP—£2,500 for January-December 2005.
	There are a number of websites set up as part of DFID funding to contractors or professional organisations. Contractors are responsible for maintaining these and have therefore not been included here. Figures are included as part of the overall contract.

Middle East

Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  what discussions he has had with his counterparts from Arab states regarding their potential contribution to the temporary international mechanism to channel assistance directly to the Palestinian people;
	(2)  what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about the sums of money the EU expects to commit to the temporary international mechanism to channel assistance directly to the Palestinian people set out in the European Council Presidency Conclusions of15 and 16 June.

Gareth Thomas: The UK has encouraged contributions to the temporary international mechanism for Palestinian basic needs from the European Union, Arab donors and other members of the international donor community. The European Community is making a contribution of €105 million. We are expecting individual EU member states to release statements regarding their contributions shortly. The mechanism is open to any donor that wishes to contribute.

Plant Breeding

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  what funding has been allocated by his Department to strengthen public sector research on seed varieties  (a) in the UK and (b) overseas; and if he will ask the World Bank to increase its lending for such projects;
	(2)  if he will list the public sector projects his Department has funded for plant breeding in developing countries in the last three years;
	(3)  whether his Department has  (a) undertaken and  (b) commissioned research into (i) the extent of the role of the private sector within the global seed industry and (ii) the impact of the private sector's role on (A) developing new plant varieties for poor farmers and (B) the diversity of genetic resources available to public plant breeders.

Gareth Thomas: DFID has allocated a total of£15.8 million to support public sector research on improved seed varieties, including plant breeding, over the past three years. The vast majority of research supported has been carried out overseas, with some advanced research being carried out at UK institutions, including the John Innes centre and the university of Leeds.
	DFID is already working with the World Bank and other donors to see how we can increase the quality and quantity of aid given for agricultural research. For example, we are working in Africa to support regional agricultural research programmes. We expect this will lead to increased grants and loans for research from the World Bank and other donors. We expect some of these funds will be used to support plant breeding and development of new seed varieties that meet the needs of poor farmers.
	DFID's Plant Sciences Research Programme managed by the centre for arid zone studies at the university of Wales at Bangor allocated £3.6 million over the last three years for plant breeding research with overseas partners. This included work on: resistance of pearl millet to downey mildew, nematode resistance of rice, banana and potato, aluminium tolerance in wheat, new breeding methods based on farmer participation in design and selection of varieties of rice, maize and cassava, and genetic marker assisted methods for pearl millet improvement.
	DFID also provides core funding to the international agricultural research centres of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Centres vary in the proportion of their budgets devoted to plant breeding. Of the core support DFID has given to centres, over the last three years, we estimate that £12.2 million has been used to support research on plant breeding and improving crop varieties for the benefit of poor people in developing countries.
	DFID has not undertaken, or commissioned, research into the extent of, and impact on, the role of the private sector within the global seed industry. However policy research has been carried out which examined the pros and cons of revenue generation from public plant breeding and links to the private sector. (Tripp and Byerlee 2000, http://www.odi.org.uk/NRP/57.html). DFID is also supporting the Seeds of Development Programme managed by the university of Cornell. The purpose of this programme is to better understand the role of private sector in achieving agricultural growth which benefits poor people by improving their access to better quality seeds.

Defence Industry

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's areas of responsibility are with regards to  (a) the defence industry and  (b) the export of weapons.

Malcolm Wicks: The information is as follows:
	 (a) The Enterprise and Business Group of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is responsible for the Government's manufacturing strategy. In this role, it promotes the legitimate interests of a wide range of UK businesses-including the UK defence industry and its supply chain and also works to secure investment and research and development that bring benefits to the UK economy. It is Government policy, as set out in the Defence Industrial Strategy, for wider industrial factors to be taken into account on major defence equipment procurements and DTI contributes to this industrial analysis.
	 (b) Separately, the Department discharges the statutory functions vested in the Secretary of State by the 'Export Control Act 2002'. Principally, this is to process applications for licences to export items whose export is controlled by that Act. This function is carried out by the Export Control and Non-Proliferation directorate, a part of Energy Group.

Departmental Websites

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many websites there are within his responsibilities; and what the total cost of maintaining such websites was in the last year for which figures are available.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We operate one core DTI website, www.dti.gov.uk, within which there are links to a wider community of websites managed by partner agencies and other arm's length bodies. We are aware of 48 DTI websites hosted by other domains.
	The support for the Department's core website are included in the overall service charge paid monthly under the IT service contract in place since 1 April 1999. There is no separation of website costs in this charge.
	Information about the Department's other websites is not held centrally and to gather it would involve disproportionate cost.

Nuclear Power Industry

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government spent on nuclear power in each of the last five years.

Malcolm Wicks: The Government's expenditure on civil nuclear energy from 2001 to 2006 is set out as follows.
	Figures for direct Government expenditure (but not including spending by the Research Councils) on nuclear fission are given in the following table:
	
		
			  Financial year  Nuclear fission (£ million) 
			 2001-02 2.0 
			 2002-03 2.1 
			 2003-04 2.1 
			 2004-05 2.2 
			 2005-06 2.3 
			  Note:  Expenditure is in support of emergency support arrangements provided by the Met Office in the event of a nuclear release into the atmosphere, and includes a contribution towards the cost of the underpinning meteorological modelling capability 
		
	
	In addition, expenditure by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council on research in aspects of nuclear fission is as follows:
	
		
			  Financial year  Nuclear fission (£ million) 
			 2001-02 0.33 
			 2002-03 0.31 
			 2003-04 0.21 
			 2004-05 0.11 
			 2005-06 0.95 
		
	
	Figures for nuclear fusion R and D are given in the following table:
	
		
			  Financial year  Nuclear fission (£ million) 
			 2001-02 14.4 
			 2002-03 14.6 
			 2003-04 15.6 
			 2004-05 19.5 
			 2005-06 17.0 
		
	
	In terms of British Energy, a loan facility was provided to the company in 2002 to support it through its restructuring. This loan was re-paid in full with interest in December 2003 and no further drawings can be made. As a result of the restructuring which completed in January 2005, the Government have taken direct financial responsibility for BE's historic spent fuel liabilities. The following payments have been made since restructuring to meet those historic spent fuel liabilities: 2004-05—£185 million; 2005-06—£189 million. The Government are also underwriting British Energy's decommissioning fund to the extent that its liabilities outweigh its assets. In return the company is making enhanced payments into the fund. On current valuations, the assets of the fund exceed the liabilities.
	The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) assumed responsibility for the UK's historic nuclear legacy on 1 April 2005. The legacy is made up of experimental facilities created 30 and 40 years ago and which were built without any consideration at the time for future decommissioning and clean up. About 80 per cent. of the total legacy costs relate to Sellafield and Dounreay—neither of which ever produced much electricity. In its approved Strategy the NDA set out its proposals for nuclear clean up which is estimated to be £62.7 billion. This is the life time cost of clean up—likely to take up to 100 years plus to implement.
	Under the 2004 Spending Review the NDA received a budget of £2.2 billion for 2005-06—about half of which was to be raised by the NDA's commercial activities. Following the successful conclusion of the EC State Aid Review on 4 April 2006, financial responsibility for decommissioning BNFL sites has passed to the NDA under the Energy Act 2004. Until this point BNFL held nuclear funding assets of some £17.3 billion on its balance sheet to fund future decommissioning costs. Following the transfer of the nuclear decommissioning liability to the NDA, these assets have been transferred back to the Government.
	Figures relating to spend by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs are unavailable and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

Aldermaston

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned expenditure on hydrodynamic testing at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment is in each of the next three years.

Des Browne: It is planned to spend in the order of£5 million on hydrodynamic testing at the Atomic Weapons Establishment this year, rising to around £6 million by the end of 2007-08. The precise budget beyond that has not been finalised.

Future Aircraft Carrier Project

Willie Rennie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact he expects negotiations with the US administration on the transfer of technology and software for the Joint Strike Fighter to have on the Future Aircraft Carrier Project.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 27 June 2006
	We remain optimistic that our negotiations with the US administration on the transfer of technology and software for the Joint Strike Fighter will be successful and as such will have no impact on the Future Aircraft Carrier programme. We remain fully committed to the Future Aircraft Carrier programme which represents a quantum step up in military capability for the UK's armed forces.

Joint Personnel Administration

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes  (a) have been made and  (b) are planned to (i) concessionary travel, (ii) living allowances,(iii) other allowances and (iv) compensation for each of the armed forces as a consequence of the introduction of Joint Personnel Administration; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Watson: Due to the amount of information requested I have placed a detailed response in the Library of the House.

Meteor Beyond-visual-range Air-to-air Missile

David Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the results of MBDA's first test firing of the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile on 9 May; and whether the development of the Meteor missile is on schedule.

Adam Ingram: The first firing of a Meteor missile took place on 9 May. The missile maintained full guidance control throughout its planned flight. Data was successfully collected during the flight and the debris was recovered. A second firing was successfully conducted on 20 June, the data from which is now being analysed.
	The Meteor programme remains on schedule to achieve the in-service date declared in the Major Project Report 2005.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  what his latest estimate is of the average time it takes the Child Support Agency to bring cases from first application to assessment;
	(2)  how many and what proportion of eligible parents received their first payment from the Child Support Agency within the target time of six weeks in each month of the last year for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his latest estimate is of the average time it takes the Child Support Agency to bring cases from first application to assessment.
	You also asked how many and what proportion of eligible parents received their first payment from the Child Support Agency within the time limit of six weeks in each month of the last year for which figures are available.
	As at the end of March 2006, of those cases that progressed to calculation since the introduction of the new scheme, the average time from first contact to calculation was 181 days (26 weeks). Of such cases, 24 per cent received a calculation in less than 6 weeks; 48 per cent between 6 weeks and 6 months; 16 per cent between6 months and a year; and 12 per cent took more than a year.
	It should be noted, however, that the Agency does not regard an application as being cleared once a calculation alone has been carried out, but only once collection arrangements have been agreed with the non resident parent. Additionally, since not all Child Support Agency applications result in a calculation, an application is also defined as cleared if the case is closed; the parent with care is identified as claiming Good Cause or is subject to a Reduced Benefit Decision; or the application is identified as being a change of circumstances on an existing case as opposed to a new application.
	As of the end of March 2006, for all cases cleared since the introduction of the new scheme, the mean average time taken to process a new-scheme application from the date of first contact to clearance, as defined above, was 204 days (29 weeks). Of those cases cleared, 25 per cent did so in less that 6 weeks; 41 per cent between 6 weeks and 6 months; 17 per cent between 6 months and a year; and 17 per cent took more than a year. These figures exclude 126,000 applications that came through the Jobcentre Plus interface and which have been cleared, but for which insufficient management information exists to enable age at clearance to be determined.
	The Agency does not have a time limit for the time taken for a parent with care to receive their first payment. Information regarding the number and percentage of cases receiving a first payment within six weeks or longer is attached.
	Once a case has received a calculation, a method of collection must be agreed with the non-resident parent and set up by the Agency which, in the cases of a Direct Debit or a Standing Order, may take a few weeks. The day on which payment is due from the non- resident parent is then specified by the Agency having taken in to account the date of any other income payable to the non-resident parent, which may result in a delay of up to 4 weeks to make payment to the Agency. The Agency then has to process the payment from the non-resident parent and make payment to the parent with care.
	Delays may occur if a non resident parent does not comply. For an employed non-resident parent the Agency can then impose a Deductions from Earnings Order (DEO). Where this occurs, the Agency must contact and liaise with the employer to set up the DEO, wait for the subsequent payment from the employer, which in itself can take over 20 days, before money is available to be paid to the parent with care.
	The elapsed times between a payment request by the Agency and actual payment by the non resident parent mean that, it is unlikely that it would be possible for many parents with care to receive maintenance payments within 6 weeks of their first contact with the Agency.
	The Agency published its 2006 Client Charter on 28th April 2006. This sets out the minimum standards of service which we aim to meet in future for each of our main business areas. The first three service standards which relate to first contact and payments are attached.
	I hope you find this helpful.
	
		
			  Number of cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA 
			   Number of cases receiving payment in   
			  Date of intake  Less than 6 weeks  6 weeks or longer  Number of cases where payment not yet received  Total 
			 January 2005 500 5,000 1,000 6,500 
			 February 2005 500 5,000 1,500 7,000 
			 March 2005 500 5,000 1,500 7,000 
			 April 2005 500 5,000 1,500 7,000 
			 May 2005 500 4,500 1,500 6,500 
			 June 2005 500 5,000 1,500 7,000 
			 July 2005 500 4,500 1,500 6,500 
			 August 2005 500 4,000 1,500 6,000 
			 September 2005 500 4,000 2,000 6,500 
			 October 2005 500 3,500 2,000 6,500 
			 November 2005 500 3,500 2,500 6,500 
			 December 2005 500 2,000 2,000 4,500 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage of cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA 
			   Percentage of cases receiving payment in   
			  Date of intake  Less than 6 weeks  6 weeks or longer  Percentage of cases where payment not yet received  Total 
			 January 2005 5 76 19 6,500 
			 February 2005 6 76 19 7,000 
			 March 2005 5 74 21 7,000 
			 April 2005 6 73 21 7,000 
			 May 2005 6 73 21 6,500 
			 June 2005 7 70 23 7,000 
			 July 2005 7 69 23 6,500 
			 August 2005 8 66 26 6,000 
			 September 2005 9 64 28 6,500 
			 October 2005 10 57 33 6,500 
			 November 2005 10 54 36 6,500 
			 December 2005 7 47 46 4,500 
			  Note:  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 500, and percentages to the nearest whole percent. As such, components may not sum to totals. 
		
	
	 Child Support Agency Client Charter—Service standards relating to first contact and payment
	 Standard 1
	If the parent with care can give us contact details for the non-resident parent, we will start gathering information from the non- resident parent within four weeks of the application being received. We will aim to make an accurate decision on the application within 12 weeks, but in some cases this may take as long as 26 weeks.
	If we do not have current contact details for the non-resident parent, we will trace them as quickly as we can. These applications may take longer to progress. In the small number of cases where we cannot trace the non-resident parent, we will not be able to progress the application.
	 Standard 2
	Where we are collecting child maintenance, we aim to make a first payment to the parent with care within six weeks of making the initial payment arrangements with the non-resident parent.
	If the non-resident parent has a job but either fails or refuses to pay, we will aim to obtain payment via a Deduction from Earnings Order (DEO) within four months of making initial payment arrangements.
	Where the non-resident parent has still not paid four months after initial payment arrangements were made, we will refer the case to our specialist enforcement unit.
	 Standard 3
	We will make maintenance payments to parents with care within a week of receiving the money from the non-resident parent.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average administration cost per case on  (a) the new and  (b) the old Child Support Agency scheme was in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average administration cost per case on (a) the new scheme and (b) the old scheme was in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
	The Child Support Agency is funded to administer child support applications and payments regardless of whether the case is administered on the new scheme or the old scheme. The actual costs of administering child support cases under each scheme are not separately identified and as such we cannot supply information to the level of detail required.
	The cost of administering the Child Support Agency in 2004/05 was £325.6 million. Figures for 2005/06 will be available when the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts are published. A change in accounting policy proposed by the Department for Work and Pensions, will lead to a restatement of 2004/05 expenditure reported in the Agency's annual accounts. This reflects the incorporation of costs associated with the Modernisation Programme in the accounts of individual Agencies rather than charging such costs directly to the central Departmental Resource Account. It is expected that the restated 2004-05 figure will increase expenditure to around £425 million. Costs for 2005/06 will be prepared on the same basis.
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken to process compensation payments made to Child Support Agency clients for administrative errors was in 2005-06.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken to process compensation payments made by Child Support Agency clients for administrative errors was in 2005-6.
	Financial redress is made to clients in cases where maladministration has occurred. The Agency does not hold robust information to distinguish administrative errors from other acts of maladministration.
	However, in the 2005/06 financial year 80% of financial redress payments for maladministered cases were processed within 30 days

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the 10 largest total  (a) compensation and  (b) maladministration payments made by the Child Support Agency to a single individual have been since May 1997, including separate payments made in relation to a single case requiring compensation; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds, dated 29 June 2006:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the 10 largest total (a) compensation and (b) maladministration payments made by the Child Support Agency to a single individual including separate payments made in relation to a single case requiring compensation have been since May 1997; and if he will make a statement.
	The Agency does not have sufficient robust information to give you precisely the information you requested. I apologise for this but can give you information on the ten highest financial redress payments awarded due to maladministration between the period 1 December 2001 to 31 May 2006.
	The table below contains the available information.
	
		
			   £ 
			 1 41,000.00 
			 2 27,961.66 
			 3 22,160.08 
			 4 19,965.36 
			 5 19,056.49 
			 6 18,980.90 
			 7 16,000.00 
			 8 14,905.97 
			 9 14,732.40 
			 10 14,648.55 
		
	
	Maladministration and compensatory payments in excess of £10,000 represent a small fraction (just over 0.01%) of the total number of such payments made by the Agency.
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost was of compensation payments made to clients of the Child Support Agency for administrative errors in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds, dated 29 June 2006:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the total cost of compensation payments made to clients of the Child Support Agency for administrative errors was in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
	Financial redress is made to clients in cases where maladministration has occurred. The Agency does not hold robust information to distinguish administrative errors from other acts of maladministration.
	The following table summarises the financial redress payments made to clients in each of the last five years, as outlined in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Figures for 2005-06 will be available in the Agency's 2005-06 Annual Report and Accounts.
	
		
			   Financial redress paid to clients (£) 
			 2000-01 3,053,000 
			 2001-02 2,590,000 
			 2002-03 2,478,000 
			 2003-04 2,331,000 
			 2004-05 3,043,000 
		
	
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints of  (a) harassment,  (b) bullying and  (c) discrimination in the workplace there were against Child Support Agency staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of (a) harassment (b) bullying and (c) discrimination have been reported to the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years.
	The numbers of harassment, bullying and discrimination cases formally reported to the Agency in the last five years are as follows:
	
		
			   Number of cases reported 
			 2001/02 49 
			 2002/03 32 
			 2003/04 44 
			 2004/05 22 
			 2005/06 18 
		
	
	The nature of the complaints does not allow separation of the data into the constituent elements of harassment, bullying and discrimination.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the proportion of sickness absence days taken in a year at the Child Support Agency which were due to stress and other mental health problems.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive.
	He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds, dated 29 June 2006:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As the Chief Executive is out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the proportion of sickness absence days taken at the Child Support Agency in the last five years that were due to stress and other mental health problems.
	The table below shows the absences broadly due to stress and other mental health problems as a percentage of total sickness absences.
	
		
			   Percentage 
			 January 2001-December 2001 28.8 
			 January 2002-December 2002 28.3 
			 April 2003-March 2004 31.8 
			 April 2004-March 2005 32 
			 April 2005-March 2006 26.7 
		
	
	Figures for January 2003 to March 2003 are unavailable as a change in methodology for collection of sickness data was introduced in April 2003.
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the  (a) absence rates due to sickness and  (b) turnover rates for Child Support Agency staff were for each year since 1995-96.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As the Chief Executive is out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) absence rates due to sickness and (b) turnover rates for Child Support Agency staff were for each year since 1995-96.
	The tables below provide the information requested.
	
		
			  Year ending  Annual sickness rate (average working days lost per member of staff, expressed in full-time equivalent terms) 
			 December 1999 12.5 
			 December 2000 11.9 
			 December 2001 12.3 
			 December 2002 12.9 
			 March 2003 13.7 
			 March 2004 15.6 
			 March 2005 15.9 
			 March 2006 12.0 
		
	
	
		
			  Year ending March:  Turnover rates (Percentage) 
			 1999 27.6 
			 2000 17.1 
			 2001 14.6 
			 2002 14.6 
			 2003 13.0 
			 2004 14.9 
			 2005 16.6 
			 2006 13.6 
			  Notes:  1. Data prior to 1999 is not available.  2. Due to a change in methodology for collection of sickness data introduced in April 2003, the year end dates have changed from December to March. 
		
	
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the key performance metrics are for measuring the performance of the EDS contract with the Child Support Agency.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply for the Chief Executive. As he is out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the key performance metrics are for measuring the success of the EDS contract with the Child Support Agency.
	In August 2005, the Department realigned its IT contracts with Electronic Data Systems (EDS), including that covering the Child Support Reforms (CSR), into the Standard Services Business Allocation (SSBA). The realigned contract is intended to deliver industry standard services at market competitive prices to the Department as a whole including Child Support Agency.
	Under the SSBA, EDS is required to meet contractual levels for live operational services across a full range of industry standard measures. The key criteria on which EDS' performance is measured in respect of CS2 (the principal IT system used by the CSA) are:
	The level of system availability (where the current target is 99.2%, rising to 99.6% over time);
	The level of desktop infrastructure availability (where the current target is 99.2%, rising to 99.4% over time);
	Accuracy and timeliness of payments to parents with care (where the target is 100%).
	The Department is entitled to financial remedies if these targets are not met. In addition, the Department can benchmark EDS services against external industry comparators to help achieve ongoing performance and value for money.
	The general contract realignment included resolution of outstanding CSR contractual issues with EDS. As part of this agreement, EDS is required to deliver a staged programme of work to fix agreed defects on CS2. The Department is monitoring delivery of this programme to planned milestone dates and to agreed testing acceptance and implementation quality criteria. Once all the relevant services have been transformed, application reliability, which affects processing times, will also become a contractual service level.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the latest list of change requests made to EDS by the Child Support Agency.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will place in the Library the latest list of change requests made to EDS by the Child Support Agency.
	The following table shows the latest list of change requests made by the Child Support Agency.
	
		
			  Change requests  Benefits 
			 CR1 (chargeable defects) This allows the business to prioritise and approve small IT fixes during the testing phase which are identified as chargeable, without delaying the current testing and delivery timescales. 
			 Change Release 1.1 (Integration Test Project) To ensure continuity of the development activity for Change Release 1.1 whilst business requirements are re-affirmed. 
			 Management Information Improvement Project This will supply management information for the key core process areas of the business to assist performance management. 
			 Call Off Scans This will allow the Agency to meet its legal requirement to maintain the accuracy of data on the CS2 system and also allow the business to obtain detailed case information. 
			 HSBC Bank Files This updates and changes the way bank files are handled between the Agency/Department and HSBC and creates an automatic link between the banking system and Agency systems. 
			 Programme Launch This will ensure that a defined and contracted programme of work is accepted, is jointly regarded as representing the best IT solution to support of the Agency's change programme. In turn this will mean that relevant EDS resource can be effectively and efficiently managed and projects implemented. 
			 Year- end scans on FMS This will allow the analysis of Agency debt to support year- end accounting activities, the development of policy proposals and emerging plans. 
			 Weeding and Archiving This allows the Agency to maintain efficient weeding and archiving of data. 
			 Data Management System Performance Changes This will reduce the overall time of the Data Management System batch run, and thereby minimise impact on the online working day start time. 
			 Notifications Survey - DWP (CSA) This will improve clarity of client notifications. 
		
	
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Child Support Agency

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what total amount of outstanding debt is owed to parents with care via the Child Support Agency; and what proportion of this is deemed uncollectable.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Hilary Reynolds:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply form the Chief Executive. As he is currently out of the country, I am responding on his behalf.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what total amount of outstanding debt is owed to parents with care via the Child Support Agency; and what proportion of this is deemed uncollectable.
	The outstanding debt balance for 2004/05 is £3,252.75 million for both new scheme and old scheme cases, of which £1,984.42 million has been classified as probably uncollectable. This information is shown the table below.
	
		
			  2004-05  Debt Position (£ million) 
			 Collectable 637.79 
			 Possibly uncollectable 599.54 
			 Deferred 31.00 
			 Probably uncollectable 1984.42 
			 Total 3252.75 
		
	
	I am unable to provide the outstanding debt amount owed to the parent with care as there is no differential applied to the outstanding debt balance between the Secretary of State and the parent with care.
	This response is based on the position at the end of the financial year 2004/05. The 2005/06 figures are currently being audited by National Audit Office and will be published in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts.
	 Definitions of Collectability of Debt
	 Collectable
	Amount outstanding which the debt analysis exercise revealed is likely to be collected. This takes into account factors such as regular contact with the non-resident parent, where regular payments are being made or an arrears agreement has been set up.
	 Possibly Uncollectable
	Amounts outstanding which the debt analysis exercise revealed some uncertainty over whether it will be collected. The amounts are considered doubtful where, for example, payments have been infrequent or it has not been possible to establish an arrears agreement or impose a deduction of earning order.
	 Deferred Debt
	Debt deferred by the Agency, provided non-resident parents meet certain conditions on payment of regular maintenance and the remaining debt outstanding. Probably
	 Uncollectable
	Amount outstanding which the debt analysis exercise revealed is likely to be very difficult to collect due, for example, to the lack of contact with, or the personal circumstance of, the non-resident parent. In many of these cases the Agency has suspended recovery action until such time as the individual's circumstances change.
	I hope you find this response helpful.

Pensioner Poverty

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures his Department has taken to reduce pensioner poverty in Coventry South since 1997.

James Purnell: The seventh annual 'Opportunity for all' report (Cm 6673) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and reports progress against a range of indicators.
	The Government have introduced a number of measures since 1997 to help older people enjoy a better standard of living, such as minimum income guarantee, and then its successor, pension credit, winter fuel payments, free TV licences for over 75s and increases above inflation in the basic state pension. The minimum level of income pensioners are expected to live on has increased by a third in real terms since 1997. As at November 2005, 4,800 people in Coventry South constituency were receiving pension credit.
	Between 1996-97 and 2004-05 numbers of pensioners in Great Britain in relative low income, after housing costs, have fallen by over a third from 2.8 million to1.8 million. Pensioners are now less likely to be in low-income than younger people, on an after housing costs basis. Information on the numbers of pensioners in low income is not available at constituency level.
	The Pensions White Paper "Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system" (Cm 6841) announced our commitment to uprate the pension credit standard guarantee and the basic state pension in line with earnings growth ensuring that we continue to tackle pensioner poverty.

Environmental Liability Directive

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects the consultation on the implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive to start.

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 6 June 2006,  Official Report, column 499W, on the Environmental Liability Directive, why the first of the two consultations on the Environmental Liability Directive on policy options has been delayed.

Ian Pearson: The first public consultation on the implementation of the Environmental Liability Directive will be launched later this year.
	The Government are still considering how best to present the options for transposing the Directive. The Directive raises many issues because of its relationship with existing domestic environmental protection legislation. The Government wants to ensure that the issues are clearly set out for optimum stakeholder engagement.

Court Service (Suffolk)

David Ruffley: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent performance of the Court Service in Suffolk.

Harriet Harman: Figures are provided to cover performance against key targets over financial year 2005-06 compared with the previous year. The information is as follows:
	 Ineffective trials
	2005-06 Crown—4 per cent. Improved from 10 per cent. last year. Target 15 per cent.
	2005-06 Magistrates—12 per cent. Improved from 15 per cent. last year. Target 16 per cent.
	 Crown Court Timeliness
	2005-06—84 per cent. of cases dealt with within target (Trials 16 weeks, Section 51 26 weeks, Committals for Sentence 10 weeks, Appeals 14 weeks). Up from 81 per cent. last year. Target 78 per cent.
	 Persistent Young Offenders (Magistrates Court)
	2005-06—37 days arrest to sentence. Down from 25 days last year. Target 71 days or less.
	 Payment rate (Magistrates Courts)
	2005-06—109 per cent. Up from 102 per cent. last year. Target 89 per cent.
	 Family Public Law
	Percentage cases completed within 40 weeks.
	2005-06 County Court—64 per cent. Up from 61 per cent. last year. Target 70 per cent.
	2005-06 Magistrates—73 per cent. Down from 77 per cent. last year. Target 70 per cent.
	 County Court Small Claims
	2005-06—90 per cent. of cases dealt with within 15 weeks. Up from 73 per cent. last year. Target 80.5 per cent.
	 County Court Fast Track
	2005-06—79 per cent. of cases dealt with within 30 weeks. Down from 91 per cent. last year. Target 78 per cent.
	 County Court Multi Track
	2005-06—100 per cent. of cases dealt with within 50 weeks as last year. Target 78 per cent.
	 Community Penalty Breach Warrants
	Percentage of proceedings resolved within 25 days.
	2005-06—72 per cent. Up from 41 per cent. last year. Target 50 per cent.

Departmental Pensions

Robert Wilson: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will estimate the pension liability of her Department over the next 30 years.

Bridget Prentice: The Member is referred to a technical Note by HM Treasury which was placed in the Library of the House on 2 March 2006, O fficial Report, columns 388-90, following an oral statement in Parliament by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
	Pension liabilities are not estimated for individual departments, they are estimated for individual pension schemes, as shown in the breakdown of liabilities per pension scheme given in Table 1 of the technical Note.

Electoral Fraud

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many incidents of  (a) postal vote fraud and  (b) other electoral fraud there were in (i) European elections, (ii) parliamentary elections and (ii) local elections in each of the last 30 years.

Bridget Prentice: Information in this detail is not collected centrally. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the previous answer on 13 June 2005,  Official Report, column 181W, for information on electoral fraud convictions. Since then, I am aware that in Halton, in May 2006 a former Labour councillor was convicted and fined for electoral fraud offences relating to the local and European parliamentary elections in 2004.

Magistrates

David Davis: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total funding allocated for the training of magistrates was in each of the last eight years.

Harriet Harman: The management information currently available within DCA and HM Courts Service is not able to easily extract the data for the periods requested. Therefore, this information cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. With the inception of HMCS last year, consistent systems and processes to merge magistrate courts are being established to ensure that the data is easily captured and will be available for the future period.

Private Members' Bills

David Amess: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what Private Members' Bills were drafted by her Department in each Session since 1997; and which of those received Royal Assent.

Vera Baird: Members will consider a range of possible subjects before introducing their Private Members' Bills.
	Government draftsmen do draft some Bills in advance which are available as one of the options for Members to consider before they make their selection.
	However, Members may make subsequent amendments or revisions to a Government drafted Bill, or use it as the basis for a Private Members' Bill in the future.
	The information requested is therefore not collected.

Special Advisers

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what role is played by special advisers in answering parliamentary questions asked of her Department.

Bridget Prentice: Special advisers conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the 'Code of Conduct for Special Advisers'.

Olympics

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of23 May 2006,  Official Report, columns 1640-1W, on the London Olympics, when discussions with the English Institute of Sport (EIS) and the Summer Olympic Sports are expected to be finalised; and when a decision is expected to be made on the amount of funding allocated to each sport for use on EIS Services within the World Class Pathway Summer Olympic programme 2006-09.

Richard Caborn: In line with its investment model UK Sport has confirmed the indicative value of existing EIS services for each funded summer Olympic sport through to 2009. In addition, these sports now have a guideline figure to be spent on Sports Science and Sports Medicine within their total World Class Performance Pathway funding.
	Those sports that already have a relationship with the EIS are in the process of determining how best to allocate the additional financial resource they have received for Sport Science/Sports Medicine services for the period 2006-09. These decisions are likely to be finalised after the summer competition season, in September or October this year.
	The new sports with no existing relationship are at the very early stages of planning their performance activity and are unlikely to finalise their Institute service requirements until later in the year.
	UK Sport, the EIS and the Summer Olympic Sports will continue to discuss the role of the Institute network in supporting athletes throughout the build up to the Beijing Olympic games and beyond.

Shrewsbury

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will visit Shrewsbury  (a) to see the plans for a new theatre and  (b) to discuss Shropshire's role in the 2012 Olympic games.

Richard Caborn: I am aware of plans to build a new theatre in Shrewsbury and understand that Arts Council England's West Midlands office is in contact with the council over the project.
	I do not have plans to visit Shrewsbury at the current time. However, representatives from the DCMS and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic games (LOCOG) will be visiting Much Wenlock in Shropshire as part of the forthcoming 2012 Regional Roadshow on 10 July.
	The Roadshow aims to ensure that local communities and businesses are fully engaged with the cultural, sporting, economic and social aspects of the games. It forms a valuable part of the work currently being taken forward by the Nations and Regions Group, chaired by Charles Alien and supported by LOCOG, to maximise benefits in every nation and region of the UK.

32 (The Royal) Squadron

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of what official duties the Minister for Europe used 32 (The Royal) Squadron for flights on  (a) 29 September 2003 and  (b) 30 September 2002; what the take-off and landing times were of each flight; whether the carbon emissions were offset in respect of each flight; which other transport options were considered on each occasion; why other transport options were not used; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: The then Ministers for Europe used 32 (The Royal) Squadron to fly to Brussels to attend the General Affairs and External Relations Council, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary (Mr. Jack Straw) on both 29 September 2003 (Dr. Denis MacShane) and 30 September 2002 (Mr. Peter Hain). The flight details on each occasion were as follows:
	
		
			  29 September 2003  30 September 2002 
			  Departed  Time  Arrived  Time  Departed  Time  Arrived  Time 
			 RAF Northolt 6.45 am Brussels 7.35 am Northolt 6.00 am Brussels 6.55 am 
			 Brussels 3.15 pm Bournemouth 4.45 pm Brussels 3.30 pm Blackpool 4.30 pm 
			 Bournemouth 5.5 pm RAF Northolt 5.30 pm Blackpool 4.45 pm RAF Northolt 5.25 pm 
		
	
	Carbon dioxide emissions arising from 32 Squadron flights are included in the Government's carbon offsetting commitment. Carbon emissions arising from the use of these flights have been recorded and offset in the same way as the use of scheduled flights since April 2005.
	In accordance with the guidance in "Travel by Ministers", other transport options were considered on each occasion. On both occasions, the option of the Minister and officials travelling by 32 (The Royal) Squadron to Brussels was chosen to enable Ministers to meet their commitments in an efficient way. The rules on the use of special flights are set out in "Travel by Ministers". The annual lists of overseas travel by Cabinet Ministers costing over £500 set out when special flights are used, and the purpose of each trip. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

Afghanistan

Richard Younger-Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many  (a) primary schools,  (b) middle schools and  (c) high schools there were in the Helmand region in each year since 2003; and how many of these schools have been closed due to (i) security risks and (ii) activities of insurgent groups.

Kim Howells: In light of the security situation in Helmand detailed education statistics are difficult to obtain.
	According to a 2005 survey by the UN Children's Fund, UNICEF, there were 253 schools in Helmand. Of 117,000 students, approximately 8,900 were girls. According to Helmand provincial Government's Department of Education there are now 224 Government of Afghanistan approved schools in the province. Of those, only 64 are currently operating in dedicated buildings. 66 schools are currently closed due to destroyed facilities or threats against teachers. To date we have been unable to obtain a more detailed breakdown of how many of these schools were closed because of Taliban action.
	The UK and other international partners are working closely with the Afghan Government to improve the quality and accessibility of education for all children across Afghanistan, in particular girls who were deprived the opportunity under the Taliban.

Falkland Islands

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate she has made of the reserves of oil and gas in Falkland Islands waters.

Geoff Hoon: Only further exploratory drilling will allow for a dependable estimate on the size of the reserves of oil and gas in Falkland Islands waters. Initial exploratory drilling was unable to ascertain the level of oil and gas reserves and is un-likely to restart before 2007.

Student Visas

Douglas Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many student visas have been issued to students from  (a) Russia and  (b) the Ukraine in each of the last eight years.

Kim Howells: The number of student visas issued in Russia and the Ukraine in each of the last eight years are as follows:
	
		
			   Russia  Ukraine 
			 2004-05 3,734 2,098 
			 2000-04 8,900 1,895 
			 2002-03 2,757 2,715 
			 2001-02 7,131 3,325 
			 2000 2,450 4,218 
			 1999 3,525 3,319 
			 1998 6,036 3,867 
			 1997 9,267 3,590 
		
	
	Prior to 2001-02, entry clearance statistics were published by calendar year, rather than financial year.

Air Passenger Duty

David Drew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure  (a) that funds raised from the UK air passenger duty are separately identified when they are redeployed and  (b) that a greater percentage of those funds is directed to the international finance facility.

Edward Balls: The UK is committed to developing innovative financing mechanisms to support accelerated progress towards the millennium development goals, and has announced that it will hypothecate part of the existing air passenger duty to provide a long-term stream of finance to the International Finance Facility (IFF) and its pilot the IFF for Immunization (IFFIm).
	The UK air passenger duty revenue is published on an annual basis at: http://www.uktradeinfo.com/index. cfm?task=airpass. The UK contribution to IFFIm will average £71 million a year over 20 years. The UK contribution to the IFF will be determined when it is launched. With the IFF, the UK could reach the equivalent of the 0.7 per cent. ODA-GNI target could be achieved as early as 2008-09.

Death Certificates

Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 2 May 2006,  Official Report, column 1387W, on death certificates, who possesses the authority to alter a certified copy of a registration of death.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 29 June 2006:
	As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question, pursuant to the Answer of 2nd May 2006, Official Report, column 1387W, on death certificates, who possesses the authority legitimately to alter a certified copy of a registration of death. (81213)
	The law provides for the registration officer who has custody of the death register containing the relevant record to make a correction. The register is kept by the registrar of births and deaths until all the entries in the register have been completed (there are usually 300 entries in a register). Once the register is filled it is deposited with the Superintendent Registrar for the district, who then assumes responsibility for correcting any ofthe records it contains. A certified copy (or certificate) is a copy of the entry in the register and must be a true copy of that entry. If an entry in a death register is corrected a certified copy of the corrected entry may be issued by the person with custody of the register.

Death Statistics

Joan Walley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent rate of  (a) cancers and  (b) stroke was in (i) Stoke-on-Trent, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) England.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 29 June 2006:
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the most recent rate of (a) cancers and (b) stroke was in (i) Stoke-on-Trent, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) England.
	 A: Cancers
	The latest available rates for newly diagnosed cases of cancer (incidence) are for the year 2003. Registration rates per 100,000 population, by site and sex, for (ii) the West Midlands and(iii) England for the year 2003 are available in Table 5 of the Annual Reference Volume, Cancer statistics: Registrations, Series MB1. These are available on the National Statistics website:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=8843 &Pos=l4&ColRank=2&Rank=272
	The most recent cancer incidence rates for all malignant cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer are given in Table 1 below for (i) Stoke on Trent Unitary Authority (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) England.
	 B: Stroke
	There is no complete register of stroke cases. Information is available centrally on emergency admission to hospital from the NHS Hospital Episode System (HES), and on death registrations.
	Figures on emergency admissions to hospital for strokes can be found on the Clinical and Health Outcomes Knowledge Base website: http://www.nchod.nhs.uk/. (Table reference numbers: 10C_5281SR7CM_04-V2 (males) 10C_5281SR7CF_04-V2 (females)). Figures are available for England, Government Office Regions, Strategic Health Authorities, Unitary Authorities and County Districts. The latest year for which data are available is for the financial year 2003/04.
	The latest year for which death rates for stroke are available is 2004 and these are given in Table 2 below.
	
		
			  Table 1. Incidence rates( 1)  per 100,000 population for all malignant cancers( 2) , by sex, registered in Stoke on Trent local authority, West Midlands Government office region and England, 2003 
			  Incidence rate per 100,000 
			  All cancers excluding nmsc  Stoke on Trent  West Midlands  England 
			 Male 518.0 478.0 462.0 
			 Female 490.0 450.0 451.0 
			 (1) Crude rates per 100,000 population.  (2) 'All malignant cancers' are defined by codes C00-C97 excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (nmsc) code C44 in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10).   Source:  Office for National Statistics 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2. Death rates(1) from stroke(2) for Stoke-on-Trent local authority, West Midlands Government office region and England,(3) by sex, 2004(4) 
			  Death rate per 100,000—Stroke 
			  All cancers excluding nmsc  Stoke on Trent  West Midlands  England 
			 Male 71.0 66.0 59.0 
			 Female 61.0 58.0 55.0 
			 (1) Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population.(2) The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10).The codes used are listed as follows: Cerebrovascular diseases—ICD-10160-169;Deaths were selected using the original underlying cause.(3) Usual residents of these areas.(4) Deaths registered in each calendar year

Household Incomes

Vincent Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  what the  (a) median and  (b) mean household income was in the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what the lower limit of the top decile for household earnings was in the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Colin Mowl, dated 29 June 2006:
	The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what the (a) median and(b) mean household income was in the latest year available and what is the lower limit of the top decile for household earnings for the latest year for which information is available. I am replying in her absence. (80640, 80641)
	This response is based on the article titled 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income' which takes account of all household income and can be found at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits, as well as in the May 2006 edition of Economic Trends.
	Disposable income is the income available for spending. It includes income from all sources after the deduction of income tax, National Insurance Contributions and council tax/Northern Ireland rates.
	Using data based on the above analysis the median household disposable income for 2004/05 was £20,398.
	Looking at table 14, appendix 1 (page 20), the mean household disposable income for 2004/05 was £25,360 per year.
	The article does also show the means for various other definitions of income, such as gross income. However, the analysis does not show the medians for these other definitions of income. These medians can be obtained on request.
	The analysis is based on an "equivalised" household disposable income distribution. "Equivalised" household disposable income distribution is a process that adjusts household income to take into account the different size and composition of households.
	Using table 14 in appendix 1 (page 20) from the above analysis, the lower limit of the top decile for household disposable income was £40,385 per year (2004/05). An equivalent figure for household earnings has not been provided as this is only one part of income and would show a large variation of earnings within the top decile (and other deciles).
	This detailed analysis is based on the Expenditure and Food Survey, which has a sample covering approximately 7,000 households in the UK.

Neighbourhood Management/Renewal Schemes

Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding has been provided by the Government for Neighbourhood Renewal projects in the constituency of Bristol, East since the scheme's inception.

Phil Woolas: Over £34,149,397 of Neighbourhood Renewal funding has been spent in the Bristol, East constituency between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2006.
	This is made up of:
	
		
			  Funding stream  Area  Amount (£) 
			 New Deal for Communities Barton Hill 30,975,000 
			 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Easton and Lawrence Hill 2,866,589 
			 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Barton Hill 148,444 
			 Community Chest/Community Learning Chest Easton and Lawrence Hill 123,214 
			 Community Chest/Community Learning Chest Barton Hill 36,150 
			 Total NR Funding Bristol, East 34,149,397 
		
	
	The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund allocation above only includes the funding spent on direct neighbourhood projects. In addition to this the area has benefited substantially from city-wide projects, including the£1.35 million city-wide education allocation in 2004-06 and from the £1,036,955 spent on projects working with equalities groups over 2001-06. Funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has also provided a neighbourhood-based team for the area since 2001.
	 Future Neighbourhood Renewal Funding
	£17,105,237 has been allocated for the area from1 April 2006 to 31 March 2008. This is made up of £15,277,000 New Deal for Communities Funding and £1,828,237 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

Planning

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much the Government have allocated to the  (a) Ashford and  (b) Milton Keynes growth areas for infrastructure development for each of the next 10 years.

Yvette Cooper: holding answer 16 June 2006
	The Ashford growth area has been allocated a total of£5.72 million in 2006-07 and £15.29 million in 2007-08 from the Growth Areas Fund. The Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area has been allocated a total of £66.07 million in 2006-07 and £62.83 million in 2007-08 from the Growth Areas Fund. In addition, the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area has also been allocated a total of £96.8 million across these two years from the Community Infrastructure Fund. The split between 2006-07 and 2007-08 has yet to be decided. This funding is in addition to infrastructure funding from other Government Departments, for example for schools, healthcare facilities and transport.
	No allocations have been made beyond 2007-08, as budgets cannot be set beyond the Government's Spending Review horizon.

Breast Cancer

Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families in Northern Ireland have been tested for the CDH 1gene; and how many patients have opted for pre-emptive surgery in each board area as a result of the test in each of the last three years.

Paul Goggins: The CDH1 (E-Cadherin) mutation is associated with familial diffuse gastric cancer. Approximately 10 to 15 families in Northern Ireland have been tested for the CDH1 mutation. None has tested positive consequently there has been no pre-emptive surgery performed in Northern Ireland for this disease.

Call Centres

Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many call centre jobs there are in Northern Ireland; how many there were three years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: Invest NI figures from a survey of customer contact centres in Northern Ireland conducted in May 2006 show that there are currently over 10,500 employed in the sector. Three years ago the number employed was around 8,000.
	The customer contact sector in Northern Ireland has been developed largely by inward investment but also contains a number of locally owned companies trading in international markets, it remains a key target sector for Invest NI.

Deafblind Children (Goverment Guidance)

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will implement in Northern Ireland the Government guidance entitled Social Care for Deafblind Children and Adults; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: The Department of Social Services and Public Safety is currently developing a strategic framework for services for people with a sensory or physical disability. It will consider the application of this guidance as part of the strategy development process.

Donor Cards

Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have signed up to carrying donor cards since 1999; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: It is impossible to know how many people in Northern Ireland carry donor cards however the following figures show the number of people in Northern Ireland who have registered with the NHS organ donor register.
	
		
			   Total Northern Ireland registrations 
			 Pre-1999 136,262 
			 1999 to date 198,801 
			 On NHS organ donor register 335,063

Education

David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why special schools in Northern Ireland are not permitted to move to integrated status.

Maria Eagle: Article 90 (2) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 as amended by the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and The Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 prohibits special schools from attaining controlled integrated status. While it is accepted that most special schools have both Protestant and Roman Catholic children, Integrated status is not appropriate for the special school sector, where developmental needs are necessarily assessed on the basis of specialised criteria, related to the individual special educational needs of the child.

Invest Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what land holdings are held by Invest Northern Ireland in each district council in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: The amount of land held by Invest Northern Ireland in each of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland is set out in the following table. It amounts to 2803 acres (1134 hectares).
	
		
			  Council area  Acres  Hectares 
			 Antrim 110 45 
			 Ards 31 13 
			 Armagh 33 13 
			 Ballymena 81 33 
			 Ballymoney 13 5 
			 Banbridge 27 11 
			 Belfast 139 56 
			 Carrickfergus 108 44 
			 Castlereagh 13 5 
			 Coleraine 74 30 
			 Cookstown 38 16 
			 Craigavon 360 146 
			 Derry 419 170 
			 Down 134 54 
			 Dungannon 93 38 
			 Fermanagh 126 51 
			 Lame 36 14 
			 Limavady 51 21 
			 Lisburn 313 127 
			 Magherafelt 72 29 
			 Moyle 6 2 
			 Newry and Mourne 100 41 
			 Newtownabbey 283 115 
			 North Down 63 25 
			 Omagh 47 19 
			 Strabane 29 12 
			 Total (1)2,803 (1)1,134 
			 (1 )Figures do not add precisely due to founding

Audit Commission Act

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports under  (a) section 19 and  (b) section 8 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 she has received in each year since the provisions were implemented.

Andy Burnham: Section 8 of the Act requires auditors in auditing the accounts to consider whether, in the public interest, they should report on any matter coming to their notice in the course of the audit, in order for it to be considered by the body concerned or brought to the attention of the public. The auditor can issue an immediate report if the public interest requires it, or can issue a report at the conclusion of the audit.
	Section 19 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 requires an appointed auditor to refer matters to the Secretary of State if he/she has reason to believe that an national health service organisation has made a decision which involves, or may involve, unlawful expenditure, known as referrals to the Secretary of State. These reports are not published.
	The number of reports and referrals made under sections 8 and 19 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 are shown in the table.
	
		
			  Number 
			   Section 8 reports  Section 19 referrals  Qualifications on accounts section 19 referrals( 1) 
			 1998 2 1 0 
			 1999 1 3 0 
			 2000 0 1 0 
			 2001 0 3 0 
			 2002 1 1 0 
			 2003 2 0 0 
			 2004 2 2 53 
			 2005 23 7 93 
			 2006(2) 16 20 n/a 
			 n/a = not available  (1) Introduced from April 2000. The section 19 referrals issued to these NHS organisations took the form of regularity reports on the 2004-05 and did not constitute a full report to the Secretary of State.  (2) To date.

Audit Commission Act

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  pursuant to her answer of 21 June 2006,  Official Report, column 1943W, on the Audit Commission Act, how many and which section 19 reports were the result of  (a) the organisation breaking its resource allocation limits,  (b) the organisation having little prospect of achieving balance within a three or five year period,  (c) suspicious payments,  (d) fraud and  (e) and other reasons;
	(2)  pursuant to her answer of 21 June 2006,  Official Report, column 1943W, on the Audit Commission Act, what the dates are of each report.

Andy Burnham: Section 19 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 requires an appointed auditor to refer matters to the Secretary of State if he/she has reason to believe that a national health service organisation has made a decision which involves, or may involve, unlawful expenditure, known as referrals to the Secretary of State. These reports are not published.
	Auditors made the following referrals, on the dates shown, under section 19 for:
	 The organisation breaking its resource allocation limits
	Bedfordshire Heartlands Primary Care Trust (PCT)(1)
	Bexley Care Trust PCT(1)
	Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford PCT(1)
	Blackwater Valley and Hart PCT(1)
	Broadland PCT(1)
	Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth PCT(1)
	Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire PCTs (December 2005)
	Cambridge City PCT(1)
	Cannock Chase PCT(1)
	Canterbury and Coastal PCT(1)
	Central Cornwall PCT(1)
	Central Suffolk PCT (February 2006)
	Central Suffolk PCT(1)
	Charnwood and North West Leicestershire PCT(1)
	Chelmsford PCT(1)
	Cherwell Vale PCT(1)
	Cheshire West PCT (February 2006)
	Cheshire West PCT(1)
	Chiltern and South Bucks PCT(1)
	Colchester PCT(1)
	Cotswold and Vale PCT(1)
	Dacorum PCT (April 2006)
	Dacorum PCT(1)
	Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley PCT(1)
	E Elmbridge and Mid Surrey PCT(1)
	East Hampshire PCT(1)
	East Lincolnshire PCT(1)
	Eastbourne Downs PCT(1)
	Eastleigh and Test Valley PCT(1)
	Fareham and Gosport PCT(1)
	Guildford and Waverley PCT(1)
	Harrow PCT(1)
	Havering PCT(1)
	Hertsmere PCT (April 2006)
	Hertsmere PCT(1)
	Hillingdon PCT(1)
	Hounslow PCT(1)
	Huntingdonshire PCT(1)
	Ipswich PCT(1)
	Isle of Wight PCT(1)
	Kennet and North Wiltshire PCT(1)
	Kensington and Chelsea PCT(1)
	Kingston PCT(1)
	Leicester City West PCT(1)
	Luton PCT(1)
	Maidstone Weald PCT(1)
	Maldon and South Chelmsford PCT(1)
	Medway PCT(1)
	Mid Hampshire PCT*
	Milton Keynes PCT(1)
	North East Oxfordshire PCT(1)
	North Hertfordshire and Stevenage PCT(1)
	New Forest PCT(1)
	Newbury and Community PCT(1)
	Newcastle under Lyme PCT(1)
	North and East Cornwall PCT(1)
	North Birmingham PCT(1)
	North Devon PCT(1)
	North Hampshire PCT(1)
	North Norfolk PCT(1)
	North Somerset PCT(1)
	North Stoke PCT(1)
	Norwich PCT(1)
	Oldbury and Smethwick PCT(1)
	South and East Dorset PCT(1)
	South Cambridgeshire PCT(1)
	South West Oxfordshire PCT(1)
	South Western Staffordshire PCT(1)
	Selby and York PCT(1)
	South East Hertfordshire PCT(1)
	South Leicestershire PCT(1)
	South Stoke PCT(1)
	South Wiltshire PCT(1)
	Southampton City PCT(1)
	Southern Norfolk PCT(1)
	St. Albans and Harpenden PCT (April 2006)
	St. Albans and Harpenden PCT(1)
	Staffordshire Moorlands PCT(1)
	Suffolk Coastal PCT (February 2006)
	Suffolk Coastal PCT(1)
	Suffolk West PCT (February 2006)
	Suffolk West PCT(1)
	Sussex Downs and Weald PCT(1)
	Swale PCT(1)
	Thurrock PCT(1)
	Vale of Aylesbury PCT(1)
	Waltham Forest PCT(1)
	Wandsworth PCT(1)
	Watford and Three Rivers PCT (April 2006)
	Watford and Three Rivers PCT(1)
	Waveney PCT(1)
	Welwyn Hatfield PCT(1)
	West Gloucestershire PCT(1)
	West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (SHA)(1)
	West Norfolk PCT(1)
	West of Cornwall PCT(1)
	West Wiltshire PCT(1)
	Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead PCT(1)
	Witham, Braintree and Halstead PCT(1)
	Wycombe PCT(1)
	Wyre Forest PCT(1)
	Yorkshire Wolds and Coast PCT(1)
	(1) The section 19 referrals issued to these NHS organisations took the form of regularity reports on the 2004-05 accounts and did not constitute a full report to the Secretary of State. These referrals do not have a specific date associated with them.
	 The organisation having little prospect of achieving balance within a three or five year period
	Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust (July 2005)
	Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust (June 2006)
	North Bristol NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Royal West Sussex NHS Trust (June 2005)
	Royal West Sussex NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust (September 2005)
	Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (June 2006)
	United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust (April 2006)
	West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Weston Area Health NHS Trust (April 2006)
	Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (April 2006)
	 Other reasons including fraud and suspicious payments
	Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA—employment issues (February 2006)
	Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust—employment issues (June 2006)

Breast Cancer

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 21 June,  Official Report, column 1936W, on breast cancer, in what circumstances a breast cancer patient may not benefit from Herceptin.

Rosie Winterton: It is for individual clinicians, in discussion with a patient, to decide whether or not it is suitable to prescribe a specific drug, taking into account any relevant guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Primary care trusts may need to be involved to decide whether to support the clinician's decision and supply the drug at the national health service expense.
	On 9 June 2006, NICE published its draft guidance on Herceptin. This recommends the drug for women with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer, except where there are concerns about cardiac function.
	However, there may be other individual patients for whom it is not suitable, for example, if the woman is too frail to tolerate chemotherapy. This will be a matter for discussion between a woman and her clinician.
	These recommendations are subject to an appeal period which dosed on 28 June 2006. Final guidance is expected to be issued at the beginning of July, assuming there are no appeals. There are no national restrictions on the NHS using Herceptin in the interim.

Deafblind People (Care Services)

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to review the implementation by local authorities of  (a) the statutory guidance for deafblind children and adults and  (b) section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 on fair access to care services; and if she will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: There are no plans to review the implementation by local authorities of the statutory guidance for deafblind children and adults. It is the responsibility of councils to identify the number of deafblind people in their area.
	There are no plans to review the implementation by local authorities of fair access to care services (FACS), which is published as statutory guidance under section seven of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
	As part of the consultation on the adult social care Green Paper "Independence, Well- being and Choice", we asked for views on the impact on FACS of shifting the balance of services from high-level need to earlier, preventative interventions. Following analysis of consultation, we believe that FACS is compatible with a preventative approach to social care.

Dentistry

Edward Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Wantage constituency have stopped taking new NHS patients since 1 April.

Rosie Winterton: Data on the number of dentists who rejected the new contract on or since 1 April and who have therefore ceased to treat national health service patients is not available centrally.
	Management information is held centrally on the number of contracts rejected or accepted by primary care trusts (PCTs). A contract may be for either a practice or an individual dentist so the information is not a guide to the number of dentists who accepted or rejected the contract. As of April, 35 contracts were agreed and three rejected in the South West Oxfordshire PCT area while 23 contracts were signed and 13 rejected in the Swindon PCT area. The signed contracts represent 98.1 per cent. and 93.1 per cent. of dental services respectively. This reflects that fact that many of those who rejected new contracts were dentists who treated relatively few NHS patients. PCTs are using the funding associated with the rejected contracts to commission additional services from other dentists.
	The pilots, funded by Lilly, each employ a well-being nurse who provides physical health checks such as cholesterol levels, blood glucose levels, blood pressure, weight etc. The nurse also facilitates well-being groups looking at diet, nutrition, exercise, smoking cessation and signposted patients to other services. Guidance for commissioners on this programme will be published shortly.

Dermatology

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government is taking to improve GP  (a) initial and  (b) continued training in dermatology; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: The Department is not responsible for setting curricula for health professional training; that is rightly the responsibility of the statutory and professional bodies. However, we do share a commitment with those bodies that all health professionals are trained so that they have the skills and knowledge to deliver a high quality health service to all groups of the population with whom they deal with.
	Post-registration training needs for national health service staff are decided against local NHS priorities, through appraisal processes and training needs analyses informed by local delivery plans and the needs of the service.
	Access to training is affected by a number of factors such as the availability of funding. Whether staff can be released, the availability of appropriate training interventions, mentors and assessors. It would not be practical for the centre to be prescriptive on this.

Health Care Support Workers

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many healthcare support workers have been employed in the NHS at Agenda for Change level  (a) five,  (b) four,  (c) three,  (d) two and  (e) one since 1997; what the annual change in staff has been at each level; and what the forecast annual change is over the next 10 year period.

Rosie Winterton: Assimilation to the agenda for change pay system has recently been completed with just under 99 per cent. of staff on the new system by the end of March. Data is not collected centrally on the number of staff in each band, but the computer aided job evaluation system can provide data on the frequency with which particular types of job have assimilated to the various pay bands.
	Health care support worker is not a commonly used job title. In the case of nursing health care assistants, which are the largest group of support worker, the data show that there have been 12,694 nursing health care assistant matches to band two, 9,255 to band three and 365 to band four. There have been no matches to band five.
	Planned changes in staff numbers in jobs at different levels are determined locally.

Insulin

Philip Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of deaths resulting from the incorrect self-administration of insulin by diabetes patients in each of the last three years.

Rosie Winterton: I refer the hon. Member tothe answer given on 2 March 2006,  Official Report, column 919W.

Maternity Services

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what estimate she has made of the cost of a birth without complications in a  (a) birth centre and  (b) consultant-led maternity unit;
	(2)  what steps she is taking to encourage NHS trusts  (a) to support existing birth centres and  (b) to establish new birth centres;
	(3)  if she will list the birth centres in England; and which birth centres have been closed  (a) permanently and  (b) temporarily in the last three years.

Ivan Lewis: The information requested on the cost of a normal birth in a birth centre and consultant-led maternity unit is not collected centrally. Reference cost data is collected against three specific health care resource groups: normal delivery with or without complications or co- morbidities, assisted delivery with or without complications or co-morbidities and caesarean section with or without complications or co-morbidities. This information is shown in tables one and two.
	The maternity standard of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services requires national health service maternity care providers and primary care trusts to ensure that the range of services available locally constitutes real choice for women, including care in midwife-led units either in the community or on a hospital site. It is for primary care trusts and NHS trusts to determine the appropriate pattern of service- provision locally, taking into account the needs of local people, evidence of effectiveness and available resources.
	The information requested to list birth centres in England and on which birth centres have been closed either permanently or temporarily in the last three years is not collected centrally
	
		
			  Table 1: 2004-05 national reference costs data for elective inpatient maternity health care resource groups (HRGs) 
			  Interquartile range of costs
			  HRG code  HRG label  Number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs)cost  National average unit cost (£)  Lower quartile (£)  Upper quartile (£)  Number of bed days  Average length of stay (days  Number of data submissions 
			 N06 Normal delivery w cc 160 1,226.94 1,119 1,541 647 4.04 18 
			 N07 Normal delivery w/o cc 3,720 902.71 673 1,365 7,098 1.91 106 
			 N08 Assisted delivery w cc 54 1,280.46 1,174 1,635 233 4.31 13 
			 N09 Assisted delivery w/o cc 703 1,137.76 684 1,499 1,822 2.59 31 
			 N10 Caesarean section w cc 346 1,767.19 1,450 2,989 1,933 5.59 35 
			 Nil Caesarean section w/o cc 2,989 1,468.80 1,250 2,237 10,110 3.38 65 
			  Totals 7,972 — — — 21,843 — — 
			  Source:  2004-05 Reference costs schedule NSRC4: NHS trust and primary care trust (PCT) combined/TELIP sheet. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: 2004-05 national reference costs data for non elective inpatient maternity HRGs 
			  Interquartile range of costs
			  HRG code  HRG label  Number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs)cost  National average unit cost (£)  Lower quartile (£)  Upper quartile (£)  Number of bed days  Average length of stay (days  Number of data submissions 
			 N06 Normal delivery w cc 21,770 1,576.22 1,112 2,103 75,771 3.48 224 
			 N07 Normal delivery w/o cc 351,662 935.37 682 1,160 653,733 1.86 355 
			 N08 Assisted delivery w cc 6,173 1, 887.17 1,517 2,383 26,458 4.29 179 
			 N09 Assisted delivery w/o cc 61,450 1,309.17 957 1,524 160,860 2.62 217 
			 N10 Caesarean section w cc 20,174 2,880.01 2,140 3,537 127,208 6.31 209 
			 Nil Caesarean section w/o cc 110,213 2,121.77 1,562 2,492 462,024 4.19 241 
			  Totals 571,442 — — — 1,506,054 — — 
			  Source:  2004-05 Reference costs schedule NSRC4: NHS trust and primary care trust (PCT) combined/TELIP sheet.

Mental Health Services

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been contributed by the NHS to the well-being pilot programmes in improving mental health.

Rosie Winterton: The Department has made£7 million available to spearhead primary care trusts in 2006-07 and in 2007-08 to support the implementation of the "Choosing Health" commitments.

Severe Head Trauma

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many specialist care centres for the rehabilitation of patients with severe head trauma there were in  (a) the South West and  (b) England in each year since 1997;
	(2)  how much her Department has spent on the provision of specialist rehabilitation services for patients with severe head trauma in each year since 1997;
	(3)  how many hospitals in the South West region offer specialist services for the rehabilitation of patients with severe head injuries;
	(4)  how many patients have received treatment for severe head trauma in a specialist centre in  (a) Taunton constituency,  (b) the South West and  (c) England in each year since 2001.

Ivan Lewis: Information on the number of specialist care centres for the rehabilitation of patients with severe head trauma, and the number of hospitals offering such services is not collected centrally.
	Information on the number of patients receiving treatment for severe head trauma in England and the South West, and the cost of that provision, is not collected centrally. Data on the number of admissions to the specialist neurological rehabilitation unit Alfred Morris House, Taunton and Somerset national health service trust is shown in the following table.
	
		
			   April—March 
			   2001-02  2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06 
			 Acquired brain injury 33 32 32 39 49 
			 Complex neurological disability 68 81 73 79 67 
			 Total 101 113 105 118 116 
			  Note:  The above data excludes day cases and out-patient activity.

Social Workers

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Safer Place initiative target of reducing violence and abuse against social workers by 25 per cent. by March 2005 was met; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: Data to track this recommendation of the national taskforce on violence against social care staff is not collected centrally.
	The responsibility to protect staff from violence and abuse falls to the employers of the staff, and the final report of the taskforce, 'A Safer Place', recommended a number of targets for employers to set themselves, against which to measure progress, and to act where standards were not good enough. One of the recommendations to employers was that they should reduce the incidence of violence to workers by 25 per cent. by March 2005 from a baseline of March 2002.

Arms Imports

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  which UK-based companies have been authorised to import and store  (a) AK-47 rifles and  (b) other small arms from Bosnia sinceJune 2003;
	(2)  how many UK-based companies are authorised  (a) to import and  (b) to store AK-47 style weapons.

Vernon Coaker: Information in the form requested is not available from either the Department of Trade and Industry's database of import licences or from the Home Office records of authorities granted under section five of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

Deportation

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign prisoners  (a) who were the subject of his statement and (i) have been considered for deportation and (ii) have yet to be considered for deportation and  (b) who remain incarcerated are from countries to which deportations are not usually undertaken on human rights grounds.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 3 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the chairman of the Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Deportation

Tobias Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the released prisoners who should have been considered for deportation are from the Dorset area.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Deportation

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the foreign prisoners who were released without being considered for deportation are thought to be in Wales.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 8 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many foreign prisoners have been released on bail in each week since 25 April; how many have breached their bail conditions; how many have been taken back into custody; and whether each prisoner was originally convicted of  (a) a serious,  (b) a more serious , (c) a most serious and  (d) an other offence;
	(2)  how many of the 1,019 foreign prisoners released without being considered for deportation have been allowed to stay in the UK after being considered for deportation; and how many of these are subject to review;
	(3)  how many of the 1,019 foreign criminals released without being considered for deportation and subsequently detained have since been granted bail;
	(4)  how many of the 1,019 foreign prisoners released without consideration for deportation have been bailed subject to licensing requirements;
	(5)  how many of the most serious offenders of the 1,019 foreign prisoners released without being considered for deportation have not been detained;
	(6)  how many of the 83 more serious offenders released without being considered for deportation have been brought under control;
	(7)  what proportion of foreign criminals subject to deportation orders were deported in each of the last 10 years.

John Reid: I have updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has written to the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Edward Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals convicted in the Crown courts in England and Wales in each of the last eight years were recommended to the Home Secretary for deportation on completion of their sentences; what the crime committed by the offender was in each case; and on what date  (a) they were deported and  (b) he decided not to follow the recommendation.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has written to the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many of the 79 foreign national offenders released from prison without consideration for deportation who had been in jail for serious offences were originally convicted of sex offences; for what offences each was originally convicted; how many have been traced; how many have been detained; and how many have been served with deportation orders;
	(2)  on what date he gave police forces the details of the 1,023 foreign national offenders who had been released from prison without consideration for deportation;
	(3)  how many foreign national offenders had been served with deportation orders but were instead released into the community in each year since 1999; how many of these were  (a) monitored,  (b) tagged and  (c) given probation orders; and what offence each had committed;
	(4)  how many of the foreign national offenders previously convicted of serious offences have been detained; for what type of offence each was originally convicted; and what the date of detention of each was.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many foreign nationals who have been released from UK prisons since 1999 have subsequently applied for asylum in the UK; and what the country of origin was of the offenders;
	(2)  pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 25 April 2006,  Official Report, column 37WS, on deportation and removal of foreign nationals, how many foreign national criminals were  (a) permitted to be in the UK,  (b) had exceeded their leave to be in the UK and  (c) were in the UK illegally when they were convicted and imprisoned;
	(3)  how many deportation orders for foreign offenders in UK prisons are awaiting processing by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; when the cases were brought to the attention of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and what crimes had been committed;
	(4)  how many foreign offenders have appealed against deportation orders served against them in each year since 1999; and how many of these appeals were successful in each year;
	(5)  pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 25 April 2006,  Official Report, column 37WS, on deportation and removal of foreign nationals, how many foreign national criminals have been detained; for what type of offence each was originally convicted; and what the date of detention was of each;
	(6)  how many foreign national offenders have been deported having served their sentence in UK prisons in each year since 1999; and what the average length of time taken from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate receiving details of the case to the deportation order being issued was in each year.

John Reid: I have updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign national offenders in UK prisons are due to be deported by1 January 2007; and what the country of origin is of each.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessor have provided regular updates to the House on all aspects of the recent events concerning the Department's handling of the deportation of foreign national prisoners who were released without consideration. In particular I refer the right hon. Member to the most recent written ministerial statement of 23 May 2006,  Official Report 446, column 77WS, where the Home Secretary sets out his analysis of the Department, the eight priority areas set out for management action to rectify these and required organisational improvements. In a written ministerial statement today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also updated the House on the latest statistical position in respect of this matter.

Foreign Criminals

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether foreign nationals who were not assessed for deportation after release from prison have been identified by  (a) national and  (b) foreign agencies as sought for (i) possible extradition and(ii) helping police with their inquiries.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many foreign national prisoners have been held beyond the date of their scheduled release pending removal or deportation in each of the last five years;
	(2)  how many foreign national prisoners have been the subject of administrative removal following their sentence in each of the last five years;
	(3)  how many foreign national prisoners have been the subject of a deportation order issued by the Immigration Service in each of the last five years.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  pursuant to his oral statement of 26 April 2006 on the deportation and removal of foreign nationals, how many of the foreign nationals recently released who were placed on the sex offenders register have complied with the terms of their release.
	(2)  how many of the foreign nationals recently released convicted of murder have been subject to supervision orders on release; and how many have complied with the terms of those orders.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the releases of foreign prisoners announced in his written statement on 26 April 2006 took place in the Leeds and Yorkshire region.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 4 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals are detained at HMP Peterborough; what percentage of the total prison population at HMP Peterborough this represents; how many foreign nationals were released from HMP Peterborough in the 12 months to31 March 2006; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 2 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many foreign nationals released from prison in each year since February 1999 have subsequently reoffended, broken down by category of those subsequent offences in  (a) England and Wales and  (b) Gloucestershire;
	(2)  how many foreign national criminals have been released from Gloucestershire prisons in each year since February 1999, broken down by  (a) prison and  (b) offence;
	(3)  how many foreign national criminals are being held in prison in Gloucestershire, broken down by  (a) prison and  (b) offence.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has written to the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his written statement of 25 April 2006,  Official Report, columns 37-8WS, on deportation and removal of foreign nationals, 
	(1)  how many foreign national prisoners have been released without the appropriate consideration of deportation or removal who on conviction had a previous home address in a London borough, broken down by  (a) borough and  (b) offence; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many foreign national prisoners have been released from each London prison without the appropriate consideration of deportation or removal, broken down by offence; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: holding answers 2 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on these matters today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Diane Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which have not referred serious offenders for consideration for deportation prior to release; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

Douglas Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many foreign nationals released from prison since 1 August 2005 have been  (a) charged with and  (b) convicted of criminal offences, broken down by offence;
	(2)  how many of the foreign nationals released since 1 July 2005 were the subject of a judicial recommendation that consideration should be given as to their deportation; and for what offences offenders subject to such a recommendation were convicted.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 2 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on these matters matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has written to the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  on how many occasions staff from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate failed to attend a prison to process the release of a foreign offender in each month since January 1999; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many visits were made by staff from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to prisons in England and Wales to process the release of foreign offenders in each month since January 1999; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: My predecessor and I have provided regular updates to the House on all aspects of the recent events concerning the Department's handling of the deportation of foreign national prisoners who were released without consideration. In particular I refer the right hon. Member to the most recent written ministerial statement of 23 May 2006,  Official report, column 77WS, where I set out my analysis of the Department, the eight priority areas set out for management action to rectify these and required organisational improvements. In a written ministerial statement today I have also updated the House on the latest statistical position in respect of this matter.

Foreign Criminals

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many of the foreign nationals convicted of offences in the UK  (a) considered for deportation and  (b) recommended by the courts for consideration for deportation in each year since 1997 subsequently claimed asylum in the UK;
	(2)  how many of the foreign nationals given non-custodial sentences and for whom deportation was recommended to be considered were deported in each of the last five years.

Liam Byrne: holding answers 8 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State forthe Home Department how many foreign prisoners (a) held in UK prisons and  (b) released within the past 12 months who were recommended for deportation are citizens (i) of the EU accession countries and (ii) of other EU countries.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 11 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Criminals

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign national prisoners whose last residential address was in  (a) Essex and  (b) Southend, West (i) were recommended for consideration for deportation, (ii) were assessed for deportation, (iii) were deported and (iv) were not deported on release from prison in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 22 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Travel

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on foreign travel by his Department in each of the last eight years.

Liam Byrne: I am advised that the figures for overseas travel for Home Office civil servants since 1998 are as provided in the following table.
	The rise in expenditure reflects increased activity in football disorder spending-increased spending due to world cup preparations and banning order operations (CRCSG); increase in overseas travel of Juxtaposed Controls officers and Air Line Liaison officers (IND).
	Juxtaposed Controls were set up as part of the strategy to reduce asylum intake and became fully operational from September 2004. The Controls are based at the Channel Tunnel, the French Seaports of Calais, Dunkerque and Boulogne and the Eurostar terminals at Brussels, Paris, Lille and Frethun. The Juxtaposed Controls counter and deter illegal migration, focusing equally on preventing clandestine illegal entrants and fraudulent use of documents.
	Juxtaposed Controls in Calais provide a significant layer of security, increasing pressure on facilitators and racketeers who profit from attempting to smuggle people through to the UK. Facilitators are handed to the French Border Control law Enforcement Agency PAF, and appear in court soon after.
	
		
			   Overseas (£) 
			 1998 885,401 
			 1999 1,433,681 
			 2000 1,383,602 
			 2001 2,070,148 
			 2002 2,350,067 
			 2003 4,447,233 
			 2004 5,845,214 
			 2005 7,187,896

Forensic Science Service

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the income received by the Forensic Science Service came from police forces in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Joan Ryan: The percentage of the income received by the Forensic Science Service, which came from police forces in England and Wales in each of the last five years, is displayed in the following table :
	
		
			  Forensic Science Service percentage income: police forces 
			   Percentage 
			 Period to 4 December 2005 90.9 
			 Year end 31 March 2005 90.1 
			 Year end 31 March 2004 91.6 
			 Year end 31 March 2003 92.8 
			 Year end 31 March 2002 91.1

Illegal Immigrants

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the foreign prisoners released into the community without proper application of the deportation review process were illegal immigrants.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)

James Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of23 May 2006, on Prisoners: Foreign Nationals, how many of the  (a) serious and  (b) most serious offenders are held in a custodial setting; and what the term 'under our control' means.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the director general of the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Research Budget

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the Department's budget was spent on researching new technologies in the last period for which figures are available.

Joan Ryan: For the latest Government-wide figures on the percentage of Government expenditure researching new technologies, I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) on 21 June 2006 showing R and D expenditure broken down by department for 2003-04. The Home Office figure in that table did not separately identify or estimate the research expenditure on new technologies from the Government services category. Overall the table shows the Home Office spent 0.64 per cent. of its budget on R and D work in 2003-04.
	Further breakdowns on planned expenditure on Science and Technology, in the Home Office and its agencies are set out in our latest Science and Innovation strategy 2005-08 available on the Home Office website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/science-strategy. pdf?view=Binary
	
		
			  Analysis of net Government R & D expenditure by primary purpose and department: 2003-04 
			   Primary purpose A( 1) : General support  (£ million)  As percentage of total department budget  Primary purpose B( 2) : Government services  (£ million)  As percentage of total department budget  Primary purpose C( 3) : Policy support  (£ million)  As percentage of total department budget 
			  Civil departments   
			 DEFRA 16.9 0.33 6.0 0.12 128.8 2.52 
			 DfES — — 17.0 3.23 33.8 6.42 
			 ODPM 0.3 0.01 3.2 0.07 26.9 0.61 
			 DfT 0.1 0.00 10.6 0.16 41.0 0.61 
			 DH (includes NHS) 2.8 0.00 557.6 0.95 31.4 0.05 
			 DWP (formerly DSS) — — 12.1 0.01 6.4 0.01 
			 HSC — — — — 14.1 7.24 
			 HO — — 42.2 0.56 5.7 0.08 
			 DCMS (formerly DNH) 6.2 0.22 0.8 0.03 7.4 0.26 
			 DFID (formerly ODA) — — 214.9 5.49 0.0 0.00 
			 DTI(ex OST) — — — — 15.7 0.39 
			 NI departments — — 1.6 0.01 19.1 0.16 
			 SE (formerly SO) 17.5 0.13 52.2 0.38 20.5 0.15 
			 NAW (formerly WO) 4.5 0.07 18.1 0.28 8.5 0.13 
			 FSA — — — — — n/a 
			 Other departments 1.3 0.00 13.3 0.04 11.4 0.04 
			 Total 49.7 0.03 949.5 0.55 370.8 0.23 
			
			 MOD — — 2,676.6 8.92 — — 
			
			 Total 3,597.5 1.58 3,733.9 1.64 421.6 0.19 
		
	
	
		
			   Primary purpose D4: Technology support  (£ million)  As percentage of total department budget  Total R & D  (£ million)  As percentage of total department budget 
			  Civil departments 
			 DEFRA 29.2 0.57 181.0 3.55 
			 DfES 1.2 0.23 52.0 9.88 
			 ODPM — — 30.4 0.69 
			 DfT 7.1 0.11 58.8 0.88 
			 DH (includes NHS) 1.1 0.00 593.0 1.01 
			 DWP (formerly DSS) — — 18.4 0.02 
			 HSC — — 14.1 7.24 
			 HO — — 48.0 0.64 
			 DCMS (formerly DNH) — — 15.2 0.54 
			 DFID (formerly ODA) — — 214.9 5.49 
			 DTI (ex OST) 455.0 11.34 470.8 11.73 
			 NI departments — — 20.6 0.18 
			 SE (formerly SO) 38.3 0.28 128.5 0.93 
			 NAW (formerly WO) — — 31.1 0.47 
			 FSA — — — n/a 
			 Other departments 4.2 0.01 30.2 0.09 
			 Total 537.0 0.31 1,907.1 1.11 
			  
			 MOD — — 2,676.6 8.92 
			  
			 Total 610.4 0.27 8,363.4 3.68 
			 n/a = not applicable.(1 )Primary Purpose A, general support for research-all basic and applied R & D which advances knowledge for its own sake; support for postgraduate research studentships (PhDs).(2) Primary Purpose B, Government services-R & D relevant to any aspect of Government service provision (all defence included here).(3) Primary Purpose C, policy support-R & D which Government funds to inform policy (excluding ppB and ppD) and for monitoring developments of significance for the welfare of the population.(4) Primary Purpose D, technology support-applied R & D that advances technology underpinning the UK economy (but excluding defence). The category includes strategic as well as applied research, and pre-competitive research under schemes such as LINK. Source:ONS Government R & D Survey

War Criminals

Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which convicted war criminals are serving sentences in the UK; how long a sentence each is serving; and where each is held.

Joan Ryan: There are two prisoners currently serving sentences of imprisonment in the UK for crimes falling within this description. Radislav Krstic is serving a35 year sentence for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. The prisoner was transferred to the UK in 2004 in accordance with the Sentence Enforcement Agreement between the UK and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Farayadi Sawar Zardad, serving a sentence of 20 years, was convicted in the UK of crimes committed in Afghanistan. It would be inappropriate for operational reasons to disclose the prisons in which they are held.